Chapter 2. The removal of James II from the throne in 1688 and the settlement of the crown jointly on William and Mary gave rise to an extensive debate about the legitimacy of the new regime. Many wrote to celebrate the ending of arbitrary rule. Some commentators (notably James Tyrrell) focused on the final securing of the fundamental rights of the people in the manner promised by the ancient constitution of England. But others (notably John Locke) preferred to appeal to the natural rights of the people as the only sound basis for guaranteeing freedom under government. At the same time, however, many rejected the settlement of 1688. The Jacobites objected that William and Mary were merely usurpers, while in the course of the 1690s a group of ‘commonwealth’ writers began to argue that the crown and executive were failing to keep their promise to outlaw the use of arbitrary power. The chapter concludes by discussing the contributions of Molesworth, Trenchard and Toland to the development of ‘commonwealth’ claims about the policies that will need to be followed if the freedom of the people from subjection and dependence is to be secured.

The Conclusion describes how, while the handbook started with the main technological and legal challenges regarding collection of digital evidence, the research shows that even though the challenges are shared by legal systems across the globe, the answers are not. Legal solutions to similar problems are fragmented, disparate and often unsatisfactory. Even if technology-neutral solutions are preferable to make sure hard-fought EU legislation and international agreements can stand the test of time, the legal reality appears to be quite different. Despite positive recent legal developments at EU and international levels, future approximation of national approaches seems highly desirable to enable LEAs to conduct effective criminal investigations to protect society and its citizens from new criminal phenomena. At the same time, protection of citizens’ fundamental rights should be reinforced, not just at the national level but in a cross-border context, considering that many criminal investigations now reach beyond national borders. Global initiatives are, however, hampered by tensions between democratic and non-democratic states, making a one-size-fits-all solution inadequate.

There is no official or universal definition for the concept of ‘family’. The absence of EU legislative competence in the substantive family law field means that there is no ‘EU family law’. Thus it is the individual EU legal instruments in different policy areas and the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the EU that demarcate, on an ad-hoc basis, the contours of the concept of ‘family’ and of related concepts for the purposes of EU law. The chapter argues that in recent years, increasing focus has been directed towards the way EU law addresses diverse family constellations in its laws and policies and how it manages the interaction of different national family law regimes in situations which fall within the scope of application of EU law. It is explained that the EU legislature and, especially, the Court have been faced with a plethora of complicated questions involving family-related matters and – as a result – with the unenviable task of carving out a solution that can be tolerated by all Member States. After identifying some pertinent questions, the chapter proceeds to explain how the chapters in this volume engage with these issues.

This chapter begins by explaining that family rights have been protected under EU law long before the adoption of the Charter. In particular, the chapter argues that the Court of Justice of the EU consolidated the protection of family life through a free movement rationale, guided by the need to eliminate obstacles to the exercise of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty. The chapter then focuses on investigating how family rights are protected under EU law today. The authors first analyse the horizontal provisions of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and how they can affect both the extent of protection and the substance of family rights. Subsequently, they look at how family rights have appeared in the Court’s case law. Finally, the authors consider the interaction of family rights with the EU citizenship provisions. Exploring the connection between fundamental rights, free movement and EU citizenship, the chapter concludes by signalling the timid use of Charter provisions to advance the protection of family life.

This chapter explores the action for damages as a remedy for fundamental rights violations committed by the EU. Especially considering the shortcomings of the other direct avenues to the CJEU, this mechanism is essential to ensure full compliance with the right to an effective remedy within the EU legal order. Its potential lies in its accessibility to individuals as well as its substantive flexibility that leaves significant room for the CJEU to craft a liability regime suitable to the EU. Yet the action for damages is currently not very effective as a fundamental rights remedy. This is largely due to two factors: the Court’s insistence on the sufficiently serious breach test and the limits to the establishment and enforcement of joint liability. To ensure full compliance with the right to an effective remedy, the CJEU may rely on Article 47 of the Charter and the approaches adopted in national liability laws to develop a fundamental rights specific regime for damages liability. Alternatively, a fundamental rights specific liability regime may also be achieved through secondary legislation.

The contribution offers a critical appraisal of the individual’s (in)access to justice when his or her fundamental rights have been violated during direct enforcement action by EU law enforcement authorities. Based on three case studies – ESMA, DG COMPETITION, OLAF – we argue that direct enforcement, and the shared activities and joint decisions of EU and national authorities it entails, have been ‘squeezed’ into the existing system of separated controls between the EU and the Member State legal orders. This brings with it challenges regarding the control over public power which may affect ‘access to’ and ‘justice’. The main argument of our contribution then is that in the current EU-constellation, courts are – contrary to what is generally assumed – not always, or in any case not necessarily, best-suited for remedying fundamental rights violations and providing the protection the individual needs. Therefore, the co-existing judicial and non-judicial remedies can address each other’s gaps and ultimately ensure a fully-fledged protection of fundamental rights if designed properly and aligned with each other and with national law.

This chapter illustrates how soft law can have very real implications for the fundamental rights position of individuals. While the existence of an interference is often treated implicitly in the case law of the ECtHR and the CJEU, the chapter argues that interferences can result from soft law acts. For the EU this means that recourse to soft law does not in itself preclude the application of the Charter. How soft law may concretely interfere with fundamental rights is illustrated with a couple of examples from different policy areas. Having shown the possible fundamental rights implications of soft law, the chapter turns to remedies. Here the limitations of the EU’s system of judicial remedies is highlighted and the potential of non-judicial remedies is explored.

In contemporary European law, it has become increasingly evident that EU law is not implemented according to the traditional distinction between direct and indirect administration, but through various forms of cooperation between national and EU authorities, as well as between national authorities themselves. These cooperative mechanisms generate so-called ‘composite procedures’, that is, administrative decision-making processes which involve administrative authorities belonging to more than one legal system for the implementation of EU law. This phenomenon has generated increasing scholar attention with attempts at offering taxonomies, labels, analyses of composite procedures in different EU policy fields, or insights regarding the question of access to justice. This chapter studies a less explored angle in this debate: the question of the remedies available to redress possible fundamental rights violations occurring in the context of the composite procedures. It first provides a categorisation of composite procedures, together with an examination of possible fundamental rights violations. The chapter then outlines the available remedies in selected scenarios, identifying possible gaps. The chapter will show that, while composite procedures are capable of violating both substantive and procedural EU fundamental rights, the current system of remedies seems to be ill-suited to provide effective remedies in multi-jurisdictional decision-making processes.

The procedure for a preliminary ruling is central in the ‘complete system of remedies’ offered by the Union to its citizens. Since Article 263 TFEU grants only a very reduced standing to ‘non-privileged applicants’, Article 267 TFEU became the main gate for individuals to bring their claims against the EU before the European Court of Justice. Yet, claims for breaches of fundamental rights by the Union are not at all common in the procedure for a preliminary ruling. This chapter investigates the (real) use and (realistic) potential of Article 267 TFEU as a means for the protection of fundamental rights against breaches by the EU institutions. The chapter maps all instances in which individuals used the procedure for a preliminary ruling to bring a claim against the Union for breaches of their fundamental rights since the coming into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. Using this mapping exercise, the chapter identifies how individuals raise this type of claims in the procedure, discusses the accessibility of the procedure for individual applicants, and assesses the shortcomings of the procedure as a means to redress breaches of fundamental rights by the Union. It argues that these shortcomings have to do with the structure and design of the procedure itself.

The action for annulment is one of the main avenues to test the lawfulness of EU measures in light of EU fundamental rights. Through this procedure, the EU courts exercise their role of guardians of the Treaties by confirming or striking down EU measures. Accordingly, the action has both an ex post regulatory and a democratic control function, while ensuring the coherence of the EU legal order under a Kelsenian model of constitutional review. It is through procedure that EU fundamental rights exercise their influence in the action for annulment: both the parties to the litigation and the Court invoke procedural fundamental rights to delineate the process-based obligations imposed on EU institutions. In so doing, both the applicants and the EU courts shape fairness and the rule of law in the EU administrative space. The centrality of procedure in the judicial review of EU law is a direct reflection of the plethora of procedures that constellate the EU governance. Yet recent rule of law saga cases appear to signal a new direction towards more substantive pleas (and therefore contestation) of EU law.

National courts are central actors in the EU legal system. In a system of remedies against EU acts, they take on a filtering function. Comparatively few civil society actors – individuals, groups, or companies – have direct access to the EU courts. This chapter focuses on the autonomous role that national courts can and do take on in addressing alleged rights violations by the EU. The chapter explores how enterprising civil society actors seize on the ambiguities inherent in a multi-level jurisdiction with contested hierarchies. In focusing on such efforts, this chapter is less interested in doctrinal questions of how to resolve conflicts inherent in a pluralist legal order. Rather, it looks at the circumstances under which civil society litigants – individuals, groups, and companies – address a claim to a national court and where national courts have historically been open to such claims.

This chapter explores online dispute resolution (ODR) as a possible mechanism for redressing fundamental rights violations by the EU. ODR as a form of redress mechanism is one of the main solutions that the EU has repeatedly proposed for the private sector when there were signs of problems with access to justice and the violation of individuals’ rights. This has been the case in consumer law with the ODR Regulation. The chapter gives an overview of various existing ODR mechanisms that could provide ideas for an EU fundamental rights ODR platform. Examples range from pre-trial ODR for small claims to out-of-court dispute settlement bodies under the DSA and the Meta Oversight Board. Embedding a fundamental rights ODR mechanism in the EU system would face challenges both in terms of the legal basis and its actual implementation. The European Ombudsman or the Fundamental Rights Officers of the EU Asylum Agency and Frontex could be a possible institutional choice for administering such an ODR mechanism.

This chapter seeks to elucidate the confusing rhetoric about rights at the time of the American founding. Influenced by social contractarian principles and common law traditions, American elites generally thought about rights in three ways. Inalienable natural rights, such as religious conscience, were aspects of freedom that individuals could not rightfully surrender to the control of the body politic. Retained natural rights, often summarized as life, liberty, and property, were rights that individuals voluntarily retained upon entering into a political society but that were regulable by law in promotion of the public good. And fundamental positive rights, such as the right to a jury trial, were rights that individuals acquired only upon the creation of political society. By recovering these categories, the chapter attempts to show not only the malleable and multifaceted nature of eighteenth-century American rights talk but also its overall intelligibility.

The responsibilitiesand liability of the persons and organisations involved in the development of AI systems are not clearly identified. The assignment of liability will need government to mo e from a risk-based to a responsibility-based system. One possible approach would be to establish a pan-EU compensation fund for damages caused by digital technologies and AI, financed by the industry and insurance companies.